SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Greg or e who wrote (44033)2/11/2002 4:15:48 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
but I believe it was half of a classic, good cop, bad cop, routine.

That was my assumption, as well, but I still think it's risky. Too in-your-face.

Karen



To: Greg or e who wrote (44033)2/11/2002 4:18:29 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 82486
 
Although the phrase was not wholly felicitous, it invoked World War II and a major commitment to stopping rogue nations before they can do any major damage. I do not think that was wrong. Even though Syria has things to answer for, for example, it largely has regional ambitions, and has been smart enough to stay away from directly threatening us. Each of the named states are more direct threats. Even Iran is seeking an enhanced capacity to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and whether the regime will moderate or harden remains up in the air. These are the ones we are the likeliest to have to confront directly.......



To: Greg or e who wrote (44033)2/11/2002 6:10:36 PM
From: The Philosopher  Respond to of 82486
 
The problem with the good cop-bad cop scenario is that somebody else should have played the bad cop so Bush could play the good cop.

I wasn't too happy with the phrase, but I see the reality behind it.

I just wonder whether the US has the will for a 15 year struggle against terrorism.